Home

Increasing Nuclear War Risks

Comment by Larry Ross, July 17, 2007

This report by Karl Ritter touches on some of the more obvious risks but also omits many others such as the following:

1. Nuclear war due to accident, miscalculation or false information.
   
2. Due to act of madness, or a deliberate calculated pre-emptive nuclear war strike as embodied in President Bush's new nuclear war doctrines.
   
3. Due to a 'false flag' incident in which nation One arranges a massive secret attack against nation Two, but it is made to look as if the attack came from   nation Three. The purpose is to supply the incentive and justification for nation two to make war on nation three. The entire exercise is presumed to benefit nation One - so long as their treachery is not discovered. A variation on this strategy is hinted at in many articles on a US-Israeli war on Iran.
   
   Israel is portrayed as prepared to attack Iran if the US refrains from attack. Because Israel and it's secret Mossad (the equivalent of the US CIA) has a record of many secret treacherous operations to foment war among it's neighbours it is thought capable of such an act. What is known is that many top politicians and military men want war with Iran . Like the Bush Administration they are using the phoney nuclear threat as their excuse. Also, the facts about the 9/11 attacks in 2001 are being covered up, and the suspicion is that it was a false flag operation. This was used to justify the nation-changing  US "wars on terror" which could not have been done without a 9/11 attack. 
   
4. Nuclear Proliferation to 8-9 nations is rightly tabled as a risk, but people are vague as to how much and why, and the various permutations.
   
   Nine nuclear weapon states means nine bodies of mainly men, deliberating in secret, whether and when to use their nuclear weapons. Many factors can influence their decisions including their degree of mental stability, and their hostility and suspicion of neighbouring states, for example, India and Pakistan over the Kashmir dispute. They have had three wars. Now both have nuclear weapons and almost had a nuclear war. This crisis situation could flare up again. If either country had changes, crisis or revolts leading to unstable leadership, this could tip the precarious balance toward nuclear war. Or a third country might stage a false flag to bring it about - thinking it would gain some advantage.
   
5. Bush's new nuclear doctrines of allowing the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war situations, and claiming the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations is a blueprint for more nuclear proliferation. There are no longer guarantees of immunity from nuclear attack if a nation pledges under the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons. In effect, this doctrine nullifies what was a very important arms control treaty - NPT, and encourages non-nuclear nations to re-evaluate their nuclear policies.
   
6. Countries "starting to see these weapons as useable, rather than just a deterrent" as referred to by nuclear expert, Ian Anthony, is a fundamentally dangerous development.
   
   The new risks that result from this Bush Administration policy can easily lead to nuclear war.
   
7. The psychological mindsets, well being and religious beliefs of the nine sets of nuclear war decision makers is a very relevant factor in whether or not nuclear weapons are used. One example is the Fundamentalist Christian "End Times" beliefs of President George Bush. In this belief system nuclear war is regarded as a fulfilment of a much-desired Biblical prediction of God. End Timers believe God wants a final battle between 'good and evil' and they are the chosen people who will decide who is "good" and who is "evil". The true believer is good and will be raptured to heaven and the unbelievers (those who do not believe in Fundamentalist Christian gospels) are evil and will be condemned by the Christian God to a perpetual hell. The 'End Timers' who have a strong influence on Bush, and are a very dedicated, wealthy and powerful minority in the US . They will support anything that leads toward a nuclear Armageddon and the fulfilment of Biblical prophesy as they interpret it. That's one reason why the 'Exclusive Brethren's sect has given large donations to conservative political parties in different countries around the world. They also devote time spreading political propaganda in favour of these parties and condemning political parties like Labour and The Greens, who reject such beliefs and are more apt to work for peaceful resolutions to conflicts.
   
   The religious interpretation of this dangerous phenomenon is that working to bring about war is doing God's work. Whereas working for peace, and against war, is seen as helping the enemies of God and should be condemned. Unfortunately a large percentage of the population don't see this as anything to be concerned about; they sneer at, laugh at and dismiss such insane ravings. People generally minimize its growing importance in US foreign policy decision-making. They prefer not to be concerned.
   
   People billed as "Nuclear Experts" and various political commentators do not usually take such factors into account when assessing nuclear risks. I think that's a mistake. The influence and power of destructive religious beliefs should be assessed and brought to the attention of the general population.
   
8. Other factors create new nuclear risks. For example the nuclear doctrine of thousands of US and Russian missiles poised to "launch on warning" is exceedingly dangerous yet has become an established fact of life that is accepted with a shrug or unconcern by most people.   This acclimatisation to living on the brink of global nuclear destruction should be exposed and eliminated as our luck could run out any day. Robert McNamara, previous US Secretary of Defence said humanity has been very lucky that a nuclear war has not happened yet. Other experts have issued similar warnings, yet the world population seems deaf and dumb to such warnings. Most major media hardly mention the nuclear risks or the consequences if nuclear war occurs. The media portrays nuclear risks as quite normal and acceptable. Research should be done as to why such warnings are not more publicised, heeded and become a spur to action; and how remedial action could be developed.
   
9. A new cold war looms and a new nuclear and other weapons arms racing. Many articles indicate a deterioration of relations between the US and Russia; the stationing of US missile defence systems on the Russian border in previous Russian satellite states; new nuclear weapons and doctrines of usage, and the US determination to place weapons in space and dominate space for the purposes of future warfare. All this leads to new arms racing, new weapons systems, instability and increased nuclear war risks.
   
   These are some of the factors to take into account when assessing all the risks of a nuclear war. The following is an introduction to this subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report: Risk of Nuclear Warfare Rising

by Karl Ritter, June 11, 2007

  The world's top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare, a Swedish research institute said Monday.

    In its annual report on military forces around the globe, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also said the rising number of nations with nuclear weapons is raising the risk such arms could be used.

    "The concern is that countries are starting to see these weapons as useable, whereas during the Cold War they were seen as a deterrent," said Ian Anthony, a nuclear expert at the institute.

    SIPRI for the first time counted North Korea among the world's nuclear countries, because of its underground test explosion of an atomic device last October. While saying it remains unclear whether the communist country has developed a deliverable nuclear weapon, the institute estimated North Korea could have produced about six nuclear bombs, based on its stockpiles of plutonium.

    Iran is a potential member of the nuclear club if it decides to turn its uranium enrichment program to military use, Anthony said - something the U.S. and its allies suspect is the Tehran regime's plan but Iranian leaders deny.

Continue.....